The GeForce GTX 660 Ti Review, Feat. EVGA, Zotac, and Gigabyte
by Ryan Smith on August 16, 2012 9:00 AM ESTIt’s hard not to notice that NVIDIA has a bit of a problem right now. In the months since the launch of their first Kepler product, the GeForce GTX 680, the company has introduced several other Kepler products into the desktop 600 series. With the exception of the GeForce GT 640 – their only budget part – all of those 600 series parts have been targeted at the high end, where they became popular, well received products that significantly tilted the market in NVIDIA’s favor.
The problem with this is almost paradoxical: these products are too popular. Between the GK104-heavy desktop GeForce lineup, the GK104 based Tesla K10, and the GK107-heavy mobile GeForce lineup, NVIDIA is selling every 28nm chip they can make. For a business prone to boom and bust cycles this is not a bad problem to have, but it means NVIDIA has been unable to expand their market presence as quickly as customers would like. For the desktop in particular this means NVIDIA has a very large, very noticeable hole in their product lineup between $100 and $400, which composes the mainstream and performance market segments. These market segments aren’t quite the high margin markets NVIDIA is currently servicing, but they are important to fill because they’re where product volumes increase and where most of their regular customers reside.
Long-term NVIDIA needs more production capacity and a wider selection of GPUs to fill this hole, but in the meantime they can at least begin to fill it with what they have to work with. This brings us to today’s product launch: the GeForce GTX 660 Ti. With nothing between GK104 and GK107 at the moment, NVIDIA is pushing out one more desktop product based on GK104 in order to bring Kepler to the performance market. Serving as an outlet for further binned GK104 GPUs, the GTX 660 Ti will be launching today as NVIDIA’s $300 performance part.
| GTX 680 | GTX 670 | GTX 660 Ti | GTX 570 | |
| Stream Processors | 1536 | 1344 | 1344 | 480 |
| Texture Units | 128 | 112 | 112 | 60 |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 | 24 | 40 |
| Core Clock | 1006MHz | 915MHz | 915MHz | 732MHz |
| Shader Clock | N/A | N/A | N/A | 1464MHz |
| Boost Clock | 1058MHz | 980MHz | 980MHz | N/A |
| Memory Clock | 6.008GHz GDDR5 | 6.008GHz GDDR5 | 6.008GHz GDDR5 | 3.8GHz GDDR5 |
| Memory Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit | 192-bit | 320-bit |
| VRAM | 2GB | 2GB | 2GB | 1.25GB |
| FP64 | 1/24 FP32 | 1/24 FP32 | 1/24 FP32 | 1/8 FP32 |
| TDP | 195W | 170W | 150W | 219W |
| Transistor Count | 3.5B | 3.5B | 3.5B | 3B |
| Manufacturing Process | TSMC 28nm | TSMC 28nm | TSMC 28nm | TSMC 40nm |
| Launch Price | $499 | $399 | $299 | $349 |
In the Fermi generation, NVIDIA filled the performance market with GF104 and GF114, the backbone of the very successful GTX 460 and GTX 560 series of video cards. Given Fermi’s 4 chip product stack – specifically the existence of the GF100/GF110 powerhouse – this is a move that made perfect sense. However it’s not a move that works quite as well for NVIDIA’s (so far) 2 chip product stack. In a move very reminiscent of the GeForce GTX 200 series, with GK104 already serving the GTX 690, GTX 680, and GTX 670, it is also being called upon to fill out the GTX 660 Ti.
All things considered the GTX 660 Ti is extremely similar to the GTX 670. The base clock is the same, the boost clock is the same, the memory clock is the same, and even the number of shaders is the same. In fact there’s only a single significant difference between the GTX 670 and GTX 660 Ti: the GTX 660 Ti surrenders one of GK104’s four ROP/L2/Memory clusters, reducing it from a 32 ROP, 512KB L2, 4 memory channel part to a 24 ROP, 384KB L2, 3 memory channel part. With NVIDIA already binning chips for assignment to GTX 680 and GTX 670, this allows NVIDIA to further bin those GTX 670 parts without much additional effort. Though given the relatively small size of a ROP/L2/Memory cluster, it’s a bit surprising they have all that many chips that don’t meet GTX 670 standards.
In any case, as a result of these design choices the GTX 660 Ti is a fairly straightforward part. The 915MHz base clock and 980MHz boost clock of the chip along with the 7 SMXes means that GTX 660 Ti has the same theoretical compute, geometry, and texturing performance as GTX 670. The real difference between the two is on the render operation and memory bandwidth side of things, where the loss of the ROP/L2/Memory cluster means that GTX 660 Ti surrenders a full 25% of its render performance and its memory bandwidth. Interestingly NVIDIA has kept their memory clocks at 6GHz – in previous generations they would lower them to enable the use of cheaper memory – which is significant for performance since it keeps the memory bandwidth loss at just 25%.
How this loss of render operation performance and memory bandwidth will play out is going to depend heavily on the task at hand. We’ve already seen GK104 struggle with a lack of memory bandwidth in games like Crysis, so coming from GTX 670 this is only going to exacerbate that problem; a full 25% drop in performance is not out of the question here. However in games that are shader heavy (but not necessarily memory bandwidth heavy) like Portal 2, this means that GTX 660 Ti can hang very close to its more powerful sibling. There’s also the question of how NVIDIA’s nebulous asymmetrical memory bank design will impact performance, since 2GB of RAM doesn’t fit cleanly into 3 memory banks. All of these are issues where we’ll have to turn to benchmarking to better understand.
The impact on power consumption on the other hand is relatively straightforward. With clocks identical to the GTX 670, power consumption has only been reduced marginally due to the disabling of the ROP cluster. NVIDIA’s official TDP is 150W, with a power target of 134W. This compares to a TDP of 170W and a power target of 141W for the GTW 670. Given the mechanisms at work for NVIDIA’s GPU boost technology, it’s the power target that is a far better reflection of what to expect relative to the GTX 670. On paper this means that GK104 could probably be stuffed into a sub-150W card with some further functional units being disabled, but in practice desktop GK104 GPUs are probably a bit too power hungry for that.
Moving on, this launch will be what NVIDIA calls a “virtual” launch, which is to say that there aren’t any reference cards being shipped to partners to sell or to press to sample. Instead all of NVIDIA’s partners will be launching with semi-custom and fully-custom cards right away. This means we’re going to see a wide variety of cards right off the bat, however it also means that there will be less consistency between partners since no two cards are going to be quite alike. For that reason we’ll be looking at a slightly wider selection of partner designs today, with cards from EVGA, Zotac, and Gigabyte occupying our charts.
As for the launch supply, with NVIDIA having licked their GK104 supply problems a couple of months ago the supply of GTX 660 Ti cards looks like it should be plentiful. Some cards are going to be more popular than others and for that reason we expect we’ll see some cards sell out, but at the end of the day there shouldn’t be any problem grabbing a GTX 660 Ti on today’s launch day.
Pricing for GTX 660 Ti cards will start at $299, continuing NVIDIA’s tidy hierarchy of a GeForce 600 at every $100 price point. With the launch of the GTX 660 Ti NVIDIA will finally be able to start clearing out the GTX 570, a not-unwelcome thing as the GTX 660 Ti brings with it the Kepler family features (NVENC, TXAA, GPU boost, and D3D 11.1) along with nearly twice as much RAM and much lower power consumption. However this also means that despite the name, the GTX 660 Ti is a de facto replacement for the GTX 570 rather than the GTX 560 Ti. The sub-$250 market the GTX 560 Ti launched will continue to be served by Fermi parts for the time being. NVIDIA will no doubt see quite a bit of success even at $300, but it probably won’t be quite the hot item that the GTX 560 Ti was.
Meanwhile for a limited period of time NVIDIA will be sweeting the deal by throwing in a copy of Borderlands 2 with all GTX 600 series cards as a GTX 660 Ti launch promotion. Borderlands 2 is the sequel to Gearbox’s 2009 FPS/RPG hybrid, and is a TWIMTBP game that will have PhysX support along with planned support for TXAA. Like their prior promotions this is being done through retailers in North America, so you will need to check and ensure your retailer is throwing in Borderlands 2 vouchers with any GTX 600 card you purchase.
On the marketing front, as a performance part NVIDIA is looking to not only sell the GTX 660 Ti as an upgrade to 400/500 series owners, but to also entice existing GTX 200 series owners to upgrade. The GTX 660 Ti will be quite a bit faster than any GTX 200 series part (and cooler/quieter than all of them), with the question being of whether it’s going to be enough to spur those owners to upgrade. NVIDIA did see a lot of success last year with the GTX 560 driving the retirement of the 8800GT/9800GT, so we’ll see how that goes.
Anyhow, as with the launch of the GTX 670 cards virtually every partner is also launching one or more factory overclocked model, so the entire lineup of launch cards will be between $299 and $339 or so. This price range will put NVIDIA and its partners smack-dab between AMD’s existing 7000 series cards, which have already been shuffling in price some due to the GTX 670 and the impending launch of the GTX 660 Ti. Reference-clocked cards will sit right between the $279 Radeon HD 7870 and $329 Radeon HD 7950, which means that factory overclocked cards will be going head-to-head with the 7950.
On that note, with the launch of the GTX 660 Ti we can finally shed some further light on this week’s unexpected announcement of a new Radeon HD 7950 revision from AMD. As you’ll see in our benchmarks the existing 7950 maintains an uncomfortably slight lead over the GTX 660 Ti, which has spurred on AMD to bump up the 7950’s clockspeeds at the cost of power consumption in order to avoid having it end up as a sub-$300 product. The new 7950B is still scheduled to show up at the end of this week, with AMD’s already-battered product launch credibility hanging in the balance.
For this review we’re going to include both the 7950 and 7950B in our results. We’re not at all happy with how AMD is handling this – it’s the kind of slimy thing that has already gotten NVIDIA in trouble in the past – and while we don’t want to reward such actions it would be remiss of us not to include it since it is a new reference part. And if AMD’s credibility is worth anything it will be on the shelves tomorrow anyhow.
| Summer 2012 GPU Pricing Comparison | |||||
| AMD | Price | NVIDIA | |||
| Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition | $469/$499 | GeForce GTX 680 | |||
| Radeon HD 7970 | $419/$399 | GeForce GTX 670 | |||
| Radeon HD 7950 | $329 | ||||
| $299 | GeForce GTX 660 Ti | ||||
| Radeon HD 7870 | $279 | ||||
| $279 | GeForce GTX 570 | ||||
| Radeon HD 7850 | $239 | ||||
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
313 Comments
View All Comments
CeriseCogburn - Thursday, August 23, 2012 - link
660Ti is hitting over 1300 core.amd loses in oc this time
Get used to changing your whistling in the dark tune
TheJian - Sunday, August 19, 2012 - link
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7950-overc..."We do need to warn you, increasing GPU voltages remains dangerous."
From page 2. Also note he says you can't go over 1ghz or so without hitting raising volts (he hit 1020 default). Raise your hand if you like to spend $300 only to blow it up a few days or months later. Never mind the Heat, noise, watts this condition will FORCE you into. His card hit a full 10c and 6db noisier than defaults. He hit 1150/1250boost max. Only 50mhz more than the 660ti. Nice try. From page 11 7950 BOOST review at gurud3:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7950-with-...
"In AMD's briefing we notice that the R7950 BOOST cards will be available from August 16 and onwards, what an incredibly coincidental date that is. It's now one day later August 17, just one AIC partner has 'announced' this product and there is NIL availability. Well, at least you now have an idea of where the competition will be in terms of performance. But that's all we can say about that really."
Note you can BUY a 660TI for $299 or $309 that is clocked by default only 14mhz less than the zotac AMP in this review. If Ryan is to note what you want in the article, he should also note it will possibly light on fire, or drive you out the room due to heat or noise while doing it. AMD isn't willing to BACK your speeds. Heck the DEFAULT noise/heat alone would drive me out of the room, never mind the extra cost of running it at your amazing numbers...LOL. A quick look at the 7950B already tells the story above it's ref speeds/volts. RIDICULOUS NOISE/HEAT/COST.
From guru3d article above:
Measured power consumption default card=138 Watts
Measured power consumption OC at 1150 MHz (1.25 Volts)=217w!! Note the one in Ryan's review is clocked at 850mhz and already 6.5db's higher than 660TI AMP. I want a silent (or as close as poosible) PC that won't heat the room or every component in my PC.
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_c...
1122mhz CORE on 660TI. The gpu boost hit 1200! That's 31% above stock (and I only googled one oc review), and I don't think this is as HOT as your 1150 would be, nor as noisy. Scratch that, I KNOW yours will be worse in BOTH cases. Just look at this review at anandtech with zotac at 1033mhz already. The zotac Amp is also 5c cooler already and you haven't got over 850mhz on the 7950 boost here. Try as you might, you can't make AMD better than they are here. Sorry. Even Anand's 7950 boost review 4 days ago says it's hard to argue for the heat/noise problem added to the already worse 7950 regular vs 660 ti. Not to mention both 7950's are more expensive than 660ti. It's all a loss, whether or not I like AMD. Heat/temp/watts are WORSE this time around on AMD. Raising to higher clocks/volts only makes it worse.
I already pointed out in another post Ryan should have posted 900mhz scores, but not to help AMD, rather that's what I'd buy if I was looking for a card from AMD for the going market cards on newegg. You just wouldn't purchase an 800mhz version (or even 850mhz), but AMD would have paid the price in the heat/watts/noise scores if Ryan did it. I would still rather have had it in there. Anandtech reviews seem to always reflect "suggested retail prices and speeds" rather than reality for buyers. That still doesn't help your case though.
It's not ridiculously easy to OC a 7950boost to 35-45% higher...Which loses a lot at 1920x1200, by huge margins, and warhead is useless as shown in my other posts, it's a loser in crysis2 now for boost vs. 660ti's of any flavor above ref.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7950-with-...
Crysis 2 ultra uber dx 11 patches everything on high. WASH for 7950 boost vs. REF 660ti! Why did Anandtech choose 2008 version?
Ref 660TI which nobody would buy given pricing of high clocked versions at $299/309 for 660 TI, default no fiddling necessary and no voiding warranty or early deaths of hardware. You seem to ignore what happens when you OC things past reasonable specs (already done by AMD with heat/noise/watts above zotac Amp here). I suspect AMD didn't want their chip to look even worse in reviews.
Argument over. I win... :)...So does your wallet if you put your fanboyism away for a bit. Note I provided a google search to my RADEON 5850 XFX purchased card complaints (regarding backorder) at amazon in another post here. I love AMD but, c'mon...They lost this round, get over it. You may have had an argument for a 7950 boost at $299 that was actually COOLER than the 7950 regular and less noisy. But with both being worse, & price being higher...It's over this round. Note the cool features of the 600 series cards in the above oc article. It's safe at 1122/1200! It's safe no matter the card, though they vary you can't hurt them (per card settings are different...Ultimate OC without damage). Nice feature.
I'd argue blow by blow over 2560x1600 (as you can prove NV victories depending on games) but I think it's pointless as I already proved in other posts, only 2% actually use that or above. Meaning 98% are using a res where the 660TI pretty much TRASHES the 7950 in all but a few games I could find (1920x1200 and below).
(hit post but didn't post...sorry if I'm about to double post this).
Galidou - Sunday, August 19, 2012 - link
It's fun to see that Nvidia as reached a very good power consumption and heat level compared to the generation before. How they mention it, but when AMD fanboys were mentioning it, coparing 6xxx against gtx5xx, they were just denied and being told it wasn't important.''Measured power consumption OC at 1150 MHz (1.25 Volts)=217w''
Wow it's amazing, 217 watts, almost as much as a gtx 580 stock.....
Comparing the 7950b noise and temperature with the very bad reference cooler against a very quiet aftermarket cooler on the 660 ti, very nice apples to apples comparison. The 7950b is for the average users, we all know the 7950 models that are overclocked and got VERY nice coolers already, thanks for the refresh.
TheJian - Monday, August 20, 2012 - link
This AMD fanboy bought a radeon 5850. Not sure what your point is?The ref design was in there too...Check the green bar card.
Galidou - Monday, August 20, 2012 - link
Well, the reference design works wonders on 660 ti because it has alot better power consumption and temperatues, the 7xxx reference coolers are just plain crap, good thing there's not much around, else the opinion of the 7xxx series would be uber bad.Overclockers tend to love the radeons and I'm an overclocker, not an AMD fanboy, I just can't support all the hate when there'S no reason for it.
CeriseCogburn - Thursday, August 23, 2012 - link
radeon 6000 series was losing the benches as it "saved power"580 was referred to as housefire and worse, nVidia was attacked for abandoning gamers w/compute
ROFL - abandoning the gamers
green earth became more important than gaming
losing frame rates was a-okay because you saved power and money
Compare that to now - nVidia is faster, quieter, smoother, and uses less power
amd loses frames, and sucks down the juice, and choppier
The 580 had a HUGE lead at the top of the charts....
So, that's the same how ?
It would be the same if amd hadn't completely failed on frame rates and had a giant lead stretching out in disbelief at the top of the charts - then one can say "the power doesn't matter" because you get something for it
It's really simple. So simple, simpletons should be able to understand. I don't think fanboys will though.
RussianSensation - Thursday, August 16, 2012 - link
Well in fairness AnandTech did test reference clocked 660Ti cards, which is a fair review. They also could have included factory pre-overclocked 660Ti cards and just commented on the price difference (i.e., up to $339). This was also mentioned in the review.But what I find the most amusing is that after how much talk was around the amazing overclocking capabilities of GTX460, NV users want to ignore that HD7950 can overclock to 1.1-1.15ghz and match a $500 GTX680. Can a GTX660Ti do that? At the end of the day an overclocked 7950 will beat an overclocked 660Ti with AA. Overclockers will go for the 7950 and people who want a quiet and efficient card will pick the 660Ti.
just4U - Thursday, August 16, 2012 - link
Does a 1.1-1.5GHZ 7950 actually match up well against a GTX680? While AMD and NVidia perform better on different games I'd still think the 680 would be somewhat ahead..CeriseCogburn - Sunday, August 19, 2012 - link
No the 7950 does not, it takes a 1200-1250 core 7970 to "match up".Even then, it can only match up in just "fps".
It still doesn't have: PhysX, adaptive v-sync, automatic OC, target frame rate, TXAA, good 3D, Surround center taskbar by default without having driver addons, STABILITY, smoothest gaming.
I could go on.
Hey here's a theory worthy of what we hear here against nVidia, but we'll make it against the real loser amd.
It appears amd has problems with smooth gameplay because they added a strange and unable to use extra G of ram on their card. Their mem controller has to try to manage access to more ram chips, more ram, and winds up stuttering and jittering in game, because even though the extra ram is there it can't make use of it, and winds up glitching trying to mange it.
There we go ! A great theory worthy of the reviewers kind he so often lofts solely toward nVida.
Galidou - Sunday, August 19, 2012 - link
Look at all the big words: ''PhysX, adaptive v-sync, automatic OC, target frame rate, TXAA, good 3D, Surround center''. Stability is my preffered, I owned so many video cards and had so little problems with them, Nvidia ATI or AMD but still Nvidia fanboys still have to make us feel that everytime you buy a video card from AMD, you gotta have to face the ''inevitable'' hangups, drivers problems, the hulk is gonna come at your home and destroy everything you OWN!!!! Beware if you buy an AMD video card, you might even catch.... ''CANCER''. oohhh cancer, beware....I had none of that and still has none of that and ALL my games played very good, memory is the problem now, not the lack of adaptive crapsync, physixx and such. You just made me remember why I do not listen to TV anymore, the adds always try to make you feel like everything you own should be changed for the new stuff, but then you change it and you feel almost nothing has been gained.
I call for ''planned obsolescence'' for the last message.